My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
121713
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2013 1:21:52 PM
Creation date
12/9/2013 12:47:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/17/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Comments on Historic Preservation Policies <br /> November 10, 2013 <br /> Page 4 <br /> Recommendation: We do not need archival preservation here - downtown Pleasanton <br /> is not Williamsburg. One way to soften the vastly expanded definition of"demolition" <br /> would be to add a clause clarifying: "It shall not be considered a "demolition"when <br /> portions of the façade are modified, expanded, removed or reconstructed with the <br /> exterior construction substantially matching the original in material, composition, <br /> design, color, texture, and shape." <br /> 4. What is a "Historic Resource"? <br /> -Proposed Standard: <br /> " Policy 1. "Historic resource" is defined as "a residential building built before 1942 . . . <br /> determined using the "Pleasanton Downtown Historic Context Statement"to be eligible <br /> for listing on the California Register" <br /> We find out in the Planning Commission Staff Report that "historic resource" would <br /> include a whole category of buildings which are not eligible for listing on the California <br /> Register, but which "contain sufficient components of a residential property type <br /> described in the Context Statement . . provided they retain their integrity." From the <br /> buildings highlighted in the Historic Context Statement, that seems to include most <br /> downtown residential properties, which is overbroad and overboard. <br /> -City violated its own Standard. In the past several years, multiple properties had <br /> historical analyses demonstrating that they were not eligible for listing on the California <br /> Register, lacked architectural merit, and had been substantially modified. Yet those <br /> properties were subjected to historic preservation requirements, with associated delays <br /> and exactions. (E.g. Old Stanley Boulevard, Neal Street, Spring Street, etc.) <br /> -Need to eliminate uncertainty. The results of the planned Historic Resource <br /> Survey should be used to definitively eliminate most older buildings which are not <br /> eligible for the California Register from historic preservation exactions. The City needs <br /> to bring property improvers back to downtown who are being frightened away by lengthy <br /> and erratic imposition of historic exactions on mediocre buildings. <br /> Recommendation: <br /> 1. The results of the Historic Resource Survey need to be brought back to City <br /> Council for approval. <br /> 2. The Survey should distinguish between buildings genuinely eligible for <br /> California Register listing, and buildings which are recommended for "historic resource" <br /> designation based on the Historic Context document, under the expansive standard set <br /> forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report (quoted above). <br /> 3. Property owners whose buildings are recommended for designation as a <br /> "historic resource" based on the Historic Context statement rather than the California <br /> Register criteria should receive notice and opportunity to weigh in on whether their <br /> property truly merits the burden of a "historic resource" designation, and the factual <br /> validity of the consultant's determination. <br /> 4. The final "historic resource" designation on each property should be made by <br /> City Council, not by a consultant. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.